expresses his conviction, that it was sinful to take it in any sense, and contrary to his former Oath. This, however, occurred earlier, as it bears date September 1690.[1] The form used in Kettlewell's time, for admitting converts to their communion, is very different from that, which was adopted at a later period. Both however will be found in the Appendix to this volume.
We now turn to the question of the deprivations, which was long, and somewhat fiercely agitated by various writers. As soon as it became apparent, that the government would insist upon the Oath, the two parties began to make use of the press in defence of their respective views. The advocates of the government defended the Oath of Allegiance: while those, who could not take it, laboured to show, that it could not lawfully be imposed.
Stillingfleet was, I believe, one of the first to enter the lists of controversy. Before the deprivations took place, as early as the year 1689, he published his "Discourse concerning the Unreasonableness of a New Separation." During that year there had been published "A History of Passive Obedience," in which was collected a large mass of evidence to prove that the Church of England disowned and discountenanced the doctrine of resistance to the supreme powers. The quotations were given from the writings of divines of the Anglican Church since the reformation. It was intended, as far as possible, to prevent the Clergy and persons in authority from taking the Oath to William and Mary: and to shew that their allegiance could not be withdrawn from King James, to whom it had been given. It was ne-
- ↑ Kettlewell's Life, 152—53, and Appendix, xix.
